Talk:World religions

Judaism ... a World Religion????

Can anyone explain how Judaism, a religion with at most 20 million worshippers, can be a World Religion?

Many sects have more members than the mosaic religion, and yet those aren't even mentioned. 2003:E6:63F1:EF38:31E3:D621:201F:4C80 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

As is stated in the article, Judaism is often considered a "world religion" because of the influence it exerted on Islam and Christianity and on the Western world more broadly. Of course, that just goes to reflect how subjective and Western-centric the concept of "world religion" is to begin with and is the reason why growing numbers of scholars of religion are rejecting it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Salams and greetings dear everyone:) I think When a human refers to his/her intrinsic feelings, we call it Fitrat, and strives hard to find the real God,creator, nurturer, (the Almighty Allah) by searching the truth, every thing will be in a way to show and guide him/her in the right path. and Allah loves this. He will open the wisdom's windows and the lightens the ways. no matter where we live, no matter who we are, in which situation we live, surely the one who is the most pious is the best human.

Allah has promised in the holy Quran to guide us. There are so many signs around us.

when I saw this page, the religions around the world, with all respects I show to all, I thing these are just names and titles.... the real deep faith is manifested in our deeds and creeds.

No matter what people call us, a christian, a muslim, a ...; however, the ideology we follow is very much important while we believe in each one. we should obey all commands in order to be a real religious person. Otherwise we are a so-called... 5.52.75.136 (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, just re-title it "World Religions Paradigm". What is this...a wiki page for debate? It's so tiny! How are the facts supposed to fit through the door?

This really seems more like a debate about the "world religion paradigm". Shouldn't that be its own article? We can't even decide which religions to discuss in the article. Yes! Make a value judgement! Decide which ones are influential by number and philosophy or political and social effect. Then go. So what if it ends up being 15? Make the paradigm thing it's own entry, for crying out loud. Did I miss something? There's not even a definition for religion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.146.243.2 (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to "Decide which ones are influential by number and philosophy or political and social effect." We simply report what the WP:Reliable sources say; otherwise we would be engaged in WP:Original research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

List above

The list above gives the topic, Religions, followed by the five main world religions, alphabetically.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

GenoV84

Hello, @GenoV84:. Regarding this edit, please bear in mind that you cannot just ignore WP:BRD by claiming that your edits were in good faith. I have raised the specific concern that these edits do not improve the article but clutter the lead with citations which properly belong in the main body of the article. Really, you should revert yourself and then seek support for your proposed changes here at the Talk Page. That would be the appropriate course of action. I would be more than happy to see the citations you are adding properly integrated into the main body of text, assuming that is that the citations really do support the claims being made of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Further, I am quite concerned that your additions do not actually cite specific page numbers; rather you simple cite entire chapters or other publications. That isn't helpful. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: In other words, you immediately reverted my contributions without even checking the cited sources yourself.... Great. If you will allow me to contribute to this article, I will take care to integrate the new sources into the main body of text and cite specific page numbers, even quotes that directly support my contributions, if you agree. Let me know. GenoV84 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Since when adding WP:RS has been controversial? Positive contributions are always welcome on WP articles; WP:BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Sorry @Midnightblueowl: but I don't see your revert as useful or constructive, and the new content that I wrote in the lead section is totally justified, considering that many statements prior to my edits were completely unsourced and therefore unreliable informations. GenoV84 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Prior to your edits, there were no citations in the lead, but everything in the main body of the article was fully cited (to specific page numbers in high-quality academic Reliable Sources) and the lead simply summarised the information in the body. That is how it should be. On that count, it is factually incorrect for you to say that prior to your edits, many statements were "completely unsourced and therefore unreliable".

Your edits themselves, although well-meaning, are not very helpful. You aren't actually citing a source that says "Abrahamic religions are considered world religions", for instance. Rather, what you have done is simply added a reference to a source that discusses Abrahamic religions after the word "Abrahamic religions" is mentioned. As I said, that does not improve the article; because of this, your edits are controversial and that is why I reverted them. It is now up to you to accept that reversion and not WP:edit war or insist that WP:BRD does not apply when it very clearly does. Please, follow the appropriate protocol; if your edits are so beneficial then you should be able to convince me (and others) of that fact here at the Talk Page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: That's what I'm trying to tell you. In fact, as you can see I didn't remove any citation that was already there in the article, I just added new sources! I don't see anything wrong with my edits, and if those sources need to be integrated into the article I will do it, there's no problem with that. GenoV84 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I restored those paragraphs to the lead section, moved the new sources to the Bibliography section, and citations have been unified with consistent citation style as per WP:MOS. Hope this solved the issue. GenoV84 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. However, we still should not be including sources in the Bibliography if they are not actually cited in the article. I would suggest putting them into a "Further reading" section, at least for the time being. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)